ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#577
#577
Grand Vol said:
Guess you've never heard of "best case" and "worst case" scenarios have you?

Wait...doesn't...compute...in...my...outrage...

Yes, there was intelligence in advance that this was a possibility. There was intelligence in advance that Iraq was going to use chemical weapons. Both in 1991 and 2003. There was intelligence in advance of the 1991 war that proclaimed the only way we could win was by using tactical nuclear weapons to break up the Iraqi Army formations.

So you fault the Secretary of Defense for putting the best case forward?



Nailed it. And you are blissfully ignorant if you think any of this mess wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been involved. Your head is stuck in the clouds or in selected parts of your anatomy if you don't think this is going down exactly how someone wants it to. This isn't by chance. Someone is pulling the strings.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you don't disappoint. I had zero doubts I would "nail it", and despite your silly cries otherwise, it is still absurd.

And I doubt very seriously in 2003 anyone knew how big and quickly that insurgency was going to grow.
Click to expand...

The intelligence was there. Ignoring it is not the same as not knowing.

I don't know which is more ridiculous, the fact that this and equating not knowing with not being able to comprehend is your argument, or the fact you stand by it. I could give two craps what you say you know, the basis of your position is stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#578
#578
rjd970 said:
Well, at least you don't disappoint. I had zero doubts I would "nail it", and despite your silly cries otherwise, it is still absurd.
Click to expand...

Not any more absurd than you continuing to say "none of this would have happened if we hadn't invaded! Waa! Waa! Bush lied, people died!"

rjd970 said:
The intelligence was there. Ignoring it is not the same as not knowing.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad you missed the part where I said "best and worst case" with intelligence reports. You obviously have never seen official estimates for such things because you sound even more stupid to those that have seen such things. Throughout history, best case and worst case scenarios have been built in to almost everything. And probably a good thing because it gives people like you something to point at in the aftermath and say "See! See! I TOLD you they predicted it!" I just love it when people Monday morning quarterback the situation based on intelligence reports that list different scenarios. Because according to morons like you think that 9/11 was a conspiracy because some analyst thought terrorists were going to fly planes into public buildings. (that's a true statement as a matter of fact)

But don't let me stop you. You continue looking foolish.

rjd970 said:
I don't know which is more ridiculous, the fact that this and equating not knowing with not being able to comprehend is your argument, or the fact you stand by it. I could give two craps what you say you know, the basis of your position is stupid.
Click to expand...

You obviously aren't smart enough to comprehend what's going on as I've tried to spell it out several times and have alluded to it in several posts, so I'll let you continue in your ignorance of the matter. If you aren't smart enough to read and comprehend what I and others have been saying in the multiple threads, I can't help you.

So have a nice day!
 
#579
#579
Grand Vol said:
Not any more absurd than you continuing to say "none of this would have happened if we hadn't invaded! Waa! Waa! Bush lied, people died!"
Click to expand...

Cute. Almost as cute as your accusations of liberal agendas when all else fails.

Grand Vol said:
I'm so glad you missed the part where I said "best and worst case" with intelligence reports. You obviously have never seen official estimates for such things because you sound even more stupid to those that have seen such things. Throughout history, best case and worst case scenarios have been built in to almost everything. And probably a good thing because it gives people like you something to point at in the aftermath and say "See! See! I TOLD you they predicted it!" I just love it when people Monday morning quarterback the situation based on intelligence reports that list different scenarios. Because according to morons like you think that 9/11 was a conspiracy because some analyst thought terrorists were going to fly planes into public buildings. (that's a true statement as a matter of fact)

But don't let me stop you. You continue looking foolish.
Click to expand...

Jesus, you really are a piece of work aren't you?

You don't think I know that? In fact, go back and stop, calm down, and read it again. I specifically quoted the pentagon's response, which characterized this back end criticism of not heeding the warnings that were lumped in with everything else (including oil fires, refugee flows, etc) as tiresome. It's exactly what you just said.

I was responding to your statement that in 2003 nobody knew how quick the insurgency was going to grow. Of course they knew, it shouldn't have been a surprise. It isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, its legitimate criticism. If Obama gets a ding for his management of the conflict so far (which I think is absolutely warranted) then absolutely the Bush administration gets a ding for getting this one so overwhelmingly wrong. Warnings were there, intelligence was there. Again, I could give two craps how many reports or estimates you have seen or how big your **** is. Clearly, a mistake was made.

And I'm a 911 conspiracy nut? You're really grasping at this point.


Grand Vol said:
You obviously aren't smart enough to comprehend what's going on as I've tried to spell it out several times and have alluded to it in several posts, so I'll let you continue in your ignorance of the matter. If you aren't smart enough to read and comprehend what I and others have been saying in the multiple threads, I can't help you.

So have a nice day!
Click to expand...

So far your position has been "I've seen this, I know this, I've done this, so you're stupid if you can't comprehend it". Forgive me for not finding that compelling in the least. Not only is it not compelling, its stupidity, in fact, its stupidity with wings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#580
#580
rjd970 said:
So far your position has been "I've seen this, I know this, I've done this, so you're stupid if you can't comprehend it". Forgive me for not finding that compelling in the least. Not only is it not compelling, its stupidity, in fact, its stupidity with wings.
Click to expand...

I guess suggesting reading what I've written over the past few days might be too much to ask...

It's all there my friend. Go, read, do a little comprehension and reach and some conclusions I imply, check the news today and maybe, just possibly you'll see what some of us have been talking about.

Now shoo, I'm done with you.
 
#581
#581
GV and rjd ,

Please refrain from calling each other ignorant and stupid. That type of name calling is reserved to only be used between Gramps and hog ( or as I call him , piglet).

Thank you in advance for your cooperation

:crazy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#582
#582
Gramps said:
GV and rjd ,

Please refrain from calling each other ignorant and stupid. That type of name calling is reserved to only be used between Gramps and hog ( or as I call him , piglet).

Thank you in advance for your cooperation

:crazy:
Click to expand...

As I stated before, like some folks from that part of the world, I'll respect my elders.

Even the very elders.
 
#583
#583
Grand Vol said:
I guess suggesting reading what I've written over the past few days might be too much to ask...

It's all there my friend. Go, read, do a little comprehension and reach and some conclusions I imply, check the news today and maybe, just possibly you'll see what some of us have been talking about.

Now shoo, I'm done with you.
Click to expand...

I have read it, do comprehend what you are saying, and still think it's silly. It is what it is though.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#587
#587
Grand Vol said:
They are not. We have a military of destruction, not one of rebuilding no matter what is said.

But on the same token, the State Department doesn't exactly "nation build" that well either. So what TRUT says is true.
Click to expand...

This is a curious statement to say the least. Is there some other type of military?
 
#588
#588
coug said:
This is a curious statement to say the least. Is there some other type of military?
Click to expand...

Depends on who happens to be in charge...

The military is set up to kill people and break their toys. However, they are becoming more sensitized as well as doing the "nation building" bit. Doesn't always work out that way.
 
#589
#589
https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/photos/a.10151250056441749.442775.6815841748/10151250061666749/?type=1&theater

603935_10151250061666749_609734208_n.jpg
 
#590
#590
lawgator1 said:
I am really torn on this. On the one hand, if we do nothing, then by all accounts this extremely violent terrorist state will almost certainly come into being, at the foot of Europe. Even if the current Iraqi regime could recover, it would resent us for doing nothing. And, it will be extremely destabilizing to the rest of the ME.

On the other, if we helped bomb ISIS into submission, that's only temporary and they just pop up somewhere else, in some other form. And the cycle begins again.
Click to expand...

Bombing a populace in hopes of breaking their will to fight has only worked once in history that I can think of, off hand.. and it only partially worked then. It was when the US dropped the big bombs on Japan. Even then the Japanese people still wanted to fight and some of the Japanese brass still tried to prevent Emperor Hirohito from transmitting word of Japan's surrender to the Allies.

When London was bombed by the Germans, it did nothing but solidify the English's will to fight. Same goes for when the United States brutally fire bombed Japan over and over before the nukes.

Even back to world war one.. the german bombing of London was terrorizing. Bombing from the sky was a brand new thing. People were horrified by the silent Zeppelins flying over at night and dropping bombs at will.. but the English were more determined than ever to fight.

This is a trend throughout history. People have never been more inspired to defend their countries, homes, and families more than when the destruction of the front is brought to their own backyards.

There is no such thing as "bombing into submission". This is why the middle eastern militant has never wavered in his fight against western forces .. and I can expect he wont. Because if you kill him, you will only inspire his brother, son, or neighbor to take his place. The only way to "win" the war in the middle east is to remove their will to fight us .. and that pretty much means just leave them the hell alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#591
#591
WooPigSooie said:
Bombing a populace in hopes of breaking their will to fight has only worked once in history that I can think of, off hand.. and it only partially worked then. It was when the US dropped the big bombs on Japan. Even then the Japanese people still wanted to fight and some of the Japanese brass still tried to prevent Emperor Hirohito from transmitting word of Japan's surrender to the Allies.

When London was bombed by the Germans, it did nothing but solidify the English's will to fight. Same goes for when the United States brutally fire bombed Japan over and over before the nukes.

Even back to world war one.. the german bombing of London was terrorizing. Bombing from the sky was a brand new thing. People were horrified by the silent Zeppelins flying over at night and dropping bombs at will.. but the English were more determined than ever to fight.

This is a trend throughout history. People have never been more inspired to defend their countries, homes, and families more than when the destruction of the front is brought to their own backyards.

There is no such thing as "bombing into submission". This is why the middle eastern militant has never wavered in his fight against western forces .. and I can expect he wont. Because if you kill him, you will only inspire his brother, son, or neighbor to take his place. The only way to "win" the war in the middle east is to remove their will to fight us .. and that pretty much means just leave them the hell alone.
Click to expand...

General Chuck Horner disagrees with you...
 
#592
#592
WooPigSooie said:
Bombing a populace in hopes of breaking their will to fight has only worked once in history that I can think of, off hand.. and it only partially worked then. It was when the US dropped the big bombs on Japan. Even then the Japanese people still wanted to fight and some of the Japanese brass still tried to prevent Emperor Hirohito from transmitting word of Japan's surrender to the Allies.

When London was bombed by the Germans, it did nothing but solidify the English's will to fight. Same goes for when the United States brutally fire bombed Japan over and over before the nukes.

Even back to world war one.. the german bombing of London was terrorizing. Bombing from the sky was a brand new thing. People were horrified by the silent Zeppelins flying over at night and dropping bombs at will.. but the English were more determined than ever to fight.

This is a trend throughout history. People have never been more inspired to defend their countries, homes, and families more than when the destruction of the front is brought to their own backyards.

There is no such thing as "bombing into submission". This is why the middle eastern militant has never wavered in his fight against western forces .. and I can expect he wont. Because if you kill him, you will only inspire his brother, son, or neighbor to take his place. The only way to "win" the war in the middle east is to remove their will to fight us .. and that pretty much means just leave them the hell alone.
Click to expand...

All that may be true and we would just leave them the hell alone, but...........they live where there's oil in the ground.
 
#594
#594
Danl said:
All that may be true and we would just leave them the hell alone, but...........they live where there's oil in the ground.
Click to expand...

Interesting don't you think?


You might not have felt it, but the world shifted Friday. The Energy Information Administration reported that the United States has now pulled ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas. In some Western states, production has doubled or even tripled, largely thanks to new technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling. Just imagine how energy independent we could be if we didn’t have half the nation using those technologies and the other half trying to ban them.

Mike Huckabee
 
#595
#595
Danl said:
All that may be true and we would just leave them the hell alone, but...........they live where there's oil in the ground.
Click to expand...

there's plenty of oil to be had here in the USA, but Obama and his idiot fellow travelers refuse to let it be extracted and sold
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#597
#597
Danl said:
All that may be true and we would just leave them the hell alone, but...........they live where there's oil in the ground.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! If we want to stop wasting American lives over there without a negative impact on our way of life we need to drill, build pipelines and refineries. The US could almost fill the world void in oil by ourselves.
 
#598
#598
Grand Vol said:
General Chuck Horner disagrees with you...
Click to expand...

I doubt you're refering to Operation Rolling Thunder in North Vietnam which Chuck Horner participated in.. I assume you mean that our bombing campaigns in Desert Storm broke the Iraqi will to fight us.

I would call that a special situation in that Saddam and his government was not firmly supported by the iraqi people to begin with. Those that welcomed the Americans never had a will to fight us to begin with.. those that opposed our occupation are still fighting us in and around the area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#599
#599
WooPigSooie said:
What are you suggesting?
Click to expand...

That the air war in Desert Storm destroyed the Iraqi will to fight maybe? We launched a 100 hour ground war against the 4th largest military in the world. And in 100 hours dismantled it because of the air campaign that was prior to. Other than the Battle of 73 Easting and sporadic smaller engagements, the Iraqi will to fight was gone. And that's because of the nearly constant bombardment from the air.

Air power can destroy a will to fight as has been proven time and time again. Your selective facts from history aren't clear indicators of that. You named the Battle of Britain as an example. There's far more than the bombings that happened during that time. Hitler himself changed the targeting from the military and industrial areas the Luftwaffe was hitting to civilian targets. As well as ignoring striking the UK radar sites which were giving them the advantage. Had they continued the campaign against the military targets, radar stations as well as the industrial base, the chances of the RAF having such a significant victory would have gone down dramatically and England might very well have been invaded.

Don't confuse tactical and strategic errors of past military conflicts as being the only reason that supports your theory.
 
#600
#600
MG1968 said:
there's plenty of oil to be had here in the USA, but Obama and his idiot fellow travelers refuse to let it be extracted and sold
Click to expand...

Whether or not we drill for more oil here or not (we should) has not, does not, and will not make one iota's difference. As long as there are large petroleum reserves, especially ones that are already in production, the largest corporations in the world will instruct their governments/militaries to do whatever is necessary to allow them to have/continue to have access to that petroleum. Almost everything else is political theatre/cover
to influence low intelligence sheeple that the national expenditures of lives, limbs, and money is worth the efforts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top